masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Nra 'Vadumee
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Reaper page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 23:22, October 26, 2009 Reaper Theory Ok, moved this discussion here b/c Tullis is correct about article talk pages not being a forum and all that. So, as for your most recent post, a few things: *I don't think that my query about the usefulness of constructing ship hull bodies was really addressed. How would cobbeling together starship hull bodies help them at all? They would still be energy beings, wouldn't they, just in shiny new bodies? To use your analogy, I could build a "custom baby" of my own, but how is that gonna help me if I'm dying of cancer? *Also, again, the Reapers state that they demand the EXTINCTION of organic races. There is only one way to define that. They wish to extinguish sentient organic life from the galaxy. *If the Reapers are trying to push organic beings into developing technology that would allow them to cast of their material shells and become energy again, why do they not change the variables a little bit? I mean, it's happened several times with organic life developing the way the Reapers want w/ the Mass Relays and the Citadel and all that, and we do know that none of that changed significantly between the last cycle of EXTINCTION and the events in-game. It's not like they didn't have plenty of time to do it after the Protheans were wiped out. Beings that intelligent surely know that you need to change up the variables if you aren't getting the desired results, which would seem to imply that the Reapers are getting exactly what they want. *Finally, you state that if your theory is true, "the Reapers likely wait steadily longer and longer, waiting for a higher amount of advancement every time the cycle has failed." However, there is no evidence to support this, and plenty of evidence to counter it. Liara T'Soni states that the archeological records show the cycle happening consistently on a 50,000 year basis. Seems pretty straightforward. *Also, again didn't really see the need for all the quantum mechanics hokum. It was all pretty straightforward, common sense kinda stuff. But again, those are my thoughts, as well as some of the general reasons I don't really buy into your theory. I would, however, love to see your response. It's nice to have a little intellectually stimulating debate every once in a while. SpartHawg948 22:35, November 3, 2009 (UTC) :*Ok- You still haven't covered how an energy being would transfer it's consciousness into a spaceship hull it built, whcih was my original point. Again, going back to the analogy, I can build a custom baby, but that doesn't help me get myself into that new body. Maybe it's not possible/feasible for you to explain that, so I'll drop it. :*I'm fairly certain Liara DOES state that the cycle of extinction takes place roughly every 50,000 years. I'll have to go back and check, but I do seem to recall hearing that. :*If I were a race of 5000 meter long, very old synthetic lifeforms (who had also just wiped out all spacefaring sentient life and now had nothing but time as they waited for sentient species to reach the proper level again), I imagine I'd have plenty of time to tear apart things like the Citadel and Mass Relays (which I and my people had of course designed and built in the first place). We know that the Relays were the same because the Reapers built the space-bound relays. The small planetary Prothean ones were prototypes. We also know that the setup was similar (if not identical) because a plan devised by the Protheans utilizing the Citadel and Mass Relays as they existed then was still able to be carried out 50,000 years later and the Reapers had no real counter (Sovereign had to come up w/ a hodge-podge plan). I know of no better evidence to prove no substantive changes were made by the Reapers. As for not changing the Citadel when it worked perfectly, as I pointed out, according to your own theory, it HAD NOT worked perfectly, as evidenced by the fact that the Reapers had to come back and do it all again! :*And again, there is only ONE definition for extinction. It is summed up succinctly by dictionary.com "Suppression; Abolition; Annihilation". Nothing in there suggests reshaping or rebirth or recreating or re- anything. In fact, Sovereign itself states "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." As for their desire to create sentient synthetic lifeforms, please remember that they also hold the geth in utter disdain, viewing them as mere tools, or as Lenin would have called them, "useful idiots". :*Also, again, you stated that if your theory was true, "the Reapers likely wait steadily longer and longer, waiting for a higher amount of advancement every time the cycle has failed." But the civilizations in game were LESS advanced than the Protheans were when the Reapers attacked. The Protheans had advanced to the point where they were beginning to reverse engineer Mass Relay technology, a feat well beyond the Citadel races. This would seem to contradict your theory, as you yourself state in the above quote. :*Finally, again, don't really see the quantum mechanics. If anything, what you have described as quantum mechanics sounds more like astrophysics, particularly theoretical astrophysics, which deals with (among other things) the formation of galaxies, stellar evolution and the formation of matter in the universe. SpartHawg948 10:28, November 7, 2009 (UTC) ::You ask me to prove it if your theory is wrong- First off I feel compelled to point out that, scientifically speaking, it is the proponent of the theory who is obligated to prove their theory. Therefor, the burden of proof would lie with you. However, I do notice that you did not refute my final substantive point in your last response. I am, of course, referring to my point about the Reapers, far from waiting till the sentient races had advanced further before wiping them out, which you contend would support your theory, actually kicking the most recent cycle off while their prey are LESS advanced than they were the previous go-around. You also did not address my point about extinction, and how the Reapers hold other synthetic life (like the geth) in disdain, thereby making it unlikely they would choose to turn organic into synthetic life, which you contend is what really happens during the cycle of extinction, but I am more concerned with the first point I mentioned. In order for your theory to be "neutral", it would seem that these two challenges must also be addressed. SpartHawg948 21:13, November 8, 2009 (UTC) :::I did read the entirety of your last post. This is why I know that you never actually addressed the two points I mentioned. You address two points, then admit "semi-defeat", which I suppose is meant to include the two points you were unable to refute (even though you do not mention them as the items you admit "semi-defeat" over). Please, in the future be more specific rather than making blanket statements like that and expecting me to know all that they encompass. And again, when dealing with a theory, in order to prove it's validity it falls upon the proponent of the theory to counter the faults listed by the detractors. I have listed two major flaws with your theory which would preclude it's entire premise, which is why the theory is not "neutral", it is disproven, at least until new supporting evidence is discovered. There, I have proven it is not neutral, as two major flaws have yet to be addressed. SpartHawg948 04:47, November 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::I fail to see how a point that YOU brought up to support your theory is "not involved". Maybe it's just not involved now that I have refuted it. Regardless, I pointed out two flaws in your theory. You "ejected" these flaws WITHOUT reworking the theory accordingly, as per the scientific method. I pointed that out. Discarding evidence that disproves a theory without altering the theory to reflect these flaws does not render said theory "neutral". That is just plain dishonest. And please, in the future, if you plan to use insults, don't try to nice it up with "no offense". "Your intelligence seems to surpass your common sense." Kinda hard to not take offense at that. I have disproven the theory, and in return you have twisted and turned and dodged in an effort to avoid acknowledging that fact. In light of this, I agree that this should cease, although it is worth mentioning that this ceased to be a "debate" as soon as you ceased rationally answering my commentary. SpartHawg948 02:49, November 11, 2009 (UTC) Theories and conduct Given that your entire user contributions consist of working out your theory concerning the Reapers, could you please take this discussion to the official forums? You can get more input there and they're set up to handle debates like this much more efficiently. I would also ask you to please stop insulting other users. Bad manners undermine your argument faster than anything else. I refer you to the Mass Effect Wiki Community Guidelines, particularly the sections on language and Talk pages. Thank you. --Tullis 15:17, November 11, 2009 (UTC) Name Also, I had a quick question about your username: While I find the name interesting, I was wondering why it was you chose to use a pre-Schism Sangheili name ('Vadumee), especially in light of the fact that, according to your Halopedia page, you hate the Prophets and their lies. In that case, wouldn't it be better to use a post-Schism name (in this case it would be Vadum)? After all, once the Sangheili cast off the San'Shyuum oppression, most, if not all, reverted to proper Sangheili names (minus the ee or other Covenant status suffix), as (according to the encyclopedia) "It is their feeling that as an innately military culture, pointing out that one is a participant in the military is an unnecessary tradition." Again, just curious, as I for one would have gone w/ a post-Schism name, like everyone's favorite Fleet Master, Rtas 'Vadum! SpartHawg948 02:18, November 17, 2009 (UTC) *One more thing. Sorry to seem like a stickler, but as even a brief glimpse at my contribution history will tell you I am big on spelling and grammar- philosophy and philosopher (as opposed to the incorrect philosiphy and philosipher- that may be the way many people pronounce it, but it's spelled with one i and two o's, not the other way around). Hope this helps! SpartHawg948 02:22, November 17, 2009 (UTC)